Liberals: You Are Now Allowed to Support Offshore Drilling

The universe is finite and everything has opportunity costs; you will be able to say the same thing about any energy generation scheme. It's NEVER time to curtail production of a vital product when there is no alternative available.

Nope. You're not being at all realistic when you say "as soon as..."

Even if alternatives were available tomorrow (they won't) and everyone decided to upgrade (they won't), they couldn't. There isn't enough production capacity to make new cars for everyone quickly and not everyone would be in a position to buy one if they did.

It will be years before alternatives are a significant portion of the market. Millions of cars will be sold this year alone. How many are alternatives, again? Rest assured, gasoline-powered cars will still be sold in 2018. And gas-powered cars will remain on the highways even when alternatives become available.

Yes it is, you're just too blinded by ideology to see it. When it costs people $100 more per month to drive to work, they're worse off. They're spending $100 more each month that they used to spend on other, additional things. That $100 used to go to local businesses or into a savings account or to pay down debt. Now, that $100 is going to the countries of OPEC. When people are paying more and getting less, that's not progress.

Because I want more oil on the market? And don't use phrases like "the playing field" to suggest there's some fairness element at play. We have oil reserves; we're NOT exploiting them at a time of high prices and high demand. That's BAD POLICY.

The rational response to high oil prices is to produce more oil. The high price is a signal: WE NEED MORE! But even though countries around the world are increasing production, we aren't.

Even if every drop of oil from ANWR goes somewhere else, it still helps us by helping satisfy worldwide demand. No, it can't do it on its own. But even Saudi Arabia's huge oilfields can't satisfy worldwide demand on their own, either.

The argument seems to be because ANWR/offshore drilling doesn't get us back to $2.25 a gallon, that it's useless to exploit them. I'd argue that this is looking at the picture the wrong way: we want to do all we can to keep prices from going any higher.

The Chinese and Indians are our trading partners. I want them to have cheaper energy, too. Since high energy prices affect everybody, we gain nothing in trade advantage. It's not like high energy prices will force firms that have outsourced to China to bring jobs back to the U.S. No, the firms will stay in China and pass the costs along to us.

Thanks for responding.

I don't think that even if ANWR and offshore drilling were opened up it would have the impact on oil price that you anticipate.

I don't know enough about the environmental issues to either insist on keeping them or toss them aside. But like Obama sez, scientific consideration is worthwhile.

Personally I like high oil prices as they tend to move us off oil. The reason being our addiction to oil has done more to destabilize the world and hurt the environment than anything else we've done.

Time to move on and stop kissing Saudi ass.

And yes it will be gradual, but it will take longer if we keep sending mixed signals to investors in other forms of energy production.

We're starting to see interesting developments in electric hybrid vehicles (GM's Volt looks more interesting than Prius).

But to "fuel" these new hybrids that charge from the mains we'll need more electrical generating capacity. I think the major source would be nuclear. Solar and wind seem nice environmentally but have engineering problems and a larger footprint.

Air travel will become the domain of the rich. We'll see the domestics decimated. My money's on a resurgence of rail passenger traffic with higher speed trains (hopefully high speed rail) for intercity travel.

We may see some cool changes in transoceanic travel as a result of jet travel becoming more expensive: look for dirigibles and fast ocean liners.

But these systems require decades to recover investors' money. Not something to be taken lightly if there's a hint of less expensive oil on the horizon.

All wanting aside, I think we're stuck with fuel prices in excess of $3/gal and the only direction is up. At best ANWR and offshore might slow the increase.

Question: what are you looking for in your next car?

Why not? But other reasons can cause outsourced jobs to come back to the US. In banking, there have been jobs that were outsourced then returned to US for various reasons.

Jobs move when there's an advantage to be gained by moving them (lower wages, higher productivity, tax incentives, etc.). If JUST China's energy prices got higher, jobs might move back to the U.S. But high energy prices affect both us and China, so no incentive to move back is created.

Yeah, no pressure to bring back jobs to the US.

Every little bit helps. Every little bit we don't do hurts.

And that, if he means it, is a reasonable position.

$3 per gallon gas is priced high enough for there to be incentives to create alternatives. As for destabilizing the world, I'd say that economic interconnectedness (what we now call "globalization") has done much more to stabilize and harmonize the world than anything else. And that's a process that demands cheap energy to continue.

As for the environment, you have to ask "as opposed to what?" Every alternative known to us throughout the 20th Century that would let us have cars, planes, trucks, railroads, etc. would have had more environmental impact than petroleum products. Imagine running a car on coal...

Until such time as oil can be replaced, Saudi oil will still be on the world market. But, personally, I look forward to the day when they have to do something else to earn their keep.

The signal investors and developers are getting now is that oil prices are high, so alternatives that weren't attractive a few years ago are becoming so. I think in 3-5 years, we'll see some great new ideas.

I think the capabilities of the Volt are awesome: a 40 mile electric car with an auxiallary gasoline powered generator. It's been in development a long time...

I think the future is nuclear, too. Solar and wind (and geothermal and maybe a few other methods) can augment our energy supply, but I don't think they're going to get us there.

Oh, I hope not. Air travel has made the world so much smaller and interconnected. China or Europe don't seem so far away when all you have to do to get there is remain seated for 10 hours.

Anyway, I wouldn't fear that coming to an end. Within the next 10-20 years, many of our cars will be replaced with hybrids or plug-in electrics, hopefully backed by large investments in nuclear power to generate the necessary electricity. The petroleum we don't use can still be used for air travel.

As I said in an earlier response to Packard: I don't want to get to the 22nd Century by going through the 19th. Until Boeing quits building jets, I think the future will be faster and even more high-flying. Where you see dirigibles, I see supersonic transports.

And it's foolish to invest in them if less expensive oil is available. Why choose expensive 19th Century modes of transportation when you can have cheap 21st Century modes?

Even if that's all we get out of them, they'd be worth it.

I dunno...I'm not in the car market. If I were, it'd be hard to pass up the new Camaro. But I'd certainly consider buying a hybrid version of something similar to what I drive now ('01 VW Passat). My best friend has the hybrid Accord (which Honda killed, unfortunately) and I have to say that it's a great car; other than price, there aren't really any compromises in it...

You wow me with the surgical precision of your statements, sir.

Be wowed by this..

Pressure (i.e., artificially imposed costs like taxes) can be used to bring jobs back, but the only people who win from that are the ones who get the jobs (and, in the long run, not even them). Everyone else winds up paying a higher price for their product.

I think that's where we have the disconnect. I can't put a dollar amount on the amount of "help" any nebulous decrease in future oil prices might bring vs. the amount of "hurt" opening up protected areas to oil exploration and drilling would bring. Add to this the cost both politically economically and environmentally of burning an even greater amount of the stuff each year.

Lacking the measurements I'm for leaving the damn stuff in the ground and getting on with business elsewhere.

It seems (please correct me if I'm wrong) you see no "hurt" to either environments (offshore/anwr) should exploration and drilling be allowed, or cost to the environment in general burning greater quantities of oil.

I see strong advantages environmentally, economically and politically to getting off oil and look at higher prices as the incentive to do so.

Taking into consideration the rather identifiable drop in oil prices that followed the announcement the President made for easing restrictions on current drilling sites, I think most would welcome a similar drop in oil prices with the introduction of additional sources of oil.

The oil market is volatile to begin with. So any introduction or addition of oil into the system is going to have a positive effect on prices.

It seems to me, we're going to burn the same amount of oil either way. The only question is how much there is on the world stage and who own it.

Also, if memory serves AND if we can use the Alaskan oil, it and Canadian oil are easier, cheaper, and cleaner to refine, produce, and use compared to the high sulfa oil we get from some places in South America (Hiya, Hugo, ya fucknut!)

If we don't pump it out of the ground, it doesn't get burned.

If prices remain at the current level, people waste less.

If prices remain at the current level, building nuclear, solar, and wind generating plants become viable to power electrically powered transportation.

Air transportation will decrease.

New industries will rise up from the ashes of our unholy lust for the devil's black gold.

What type of increases are you willing to pay for at the grocery store, clothing stores and etc?

It seems you have no problem expecting people to change their lifestyles when it isn't necessary and when it will actually hurt our society rather than help it or improve it. Especially when it is avoidable and unnecessary.

Whatever I want. When I stop wanting to I change my habits.

It's true I have no problem with people changing their habits. Especially when forced on us by the increased price of a finite resource that we've squandered for so long.

Where we have the disagreement is what these changes will mean to our quality of life and whether they're avoidable.

What changes are being forced on you? Are you going without food or clothing or did you make the mistake of buying a 15mpg SUV?

Other than not buying the yacht I've been longing for I don't see my life changing. Maybe fewer people clogging up the road; more teleworkers.

You mean the high sulphur oil that we can no longer use for diesel fuel because of the recent change in sulphur content requirements for semi trucks and such?

You know, I define it the exact opposite way. If it stays in the ground and is never used, it's wasted.

The fact that higher energy prices will literally kill human beings of course is a bonus - there's too many of them anyway.

Get rid of all the humans, we'll get rid of all that unsightly waste!

And people say environmentalism isn't a religion.

Once again, fee free to divest yourself of all this waste as soon as possible.

The best thing? That means you won't be on the internet wasting precious band width anymore!

Steve supports killing the economy and voluntarily plunging the US into a dark age.

Don't worry! The Rich(tm) will pay for everyone who isn't able to work!

Of course he does. He has stated multiple times that he hates where he lives. A bitter person who is unable to obtain happiness of course would want everyone around him to suffer.

We call that evil. Or liberal. Whatever.

Obama forgives him.

Do you now. So you would be willing to give up basics if they become too expensive due in part to increased fuel costs for the diesel trucks that haul the products to your stores? Do you think that everyone else should be willing to give things up in their lives as well because you dislike the thought of us taking advantage of the oil sources we have available to us domestically?

We haven't squandered anything. Because we take advantage of something that is readily and widely available does not equal squandering.

They are avoidable. For some reason you have no problem seeing our economy damaged until some new form of energy becomes available. An energy that you really don't know will take a year, a decade or more to discover, develop and put into operation.

The SUV really has nothing to do with this. The simple fact of the matter is you are supporting fuel costs that are high now, becoming higher because of your dislike of our nation taking advantage of oil reserves that are available to us. That is senseless. It is also unnecessary.

We aren't talking about buying yachts. Well most of us aren't except for maybe you. Items delivered to many of our grocery stores do not include SUV's or yachts. But, they do require being hauled by air, train, and trucks. All of which require fuel to run. All of which require fuel that comes in no small part from oil. A commodity you are opposed to us using for some reason.

Obama loves that just like Jimmy Carter loved it when he was in office.

Alarmist much?

Such a low opinion of American ingenuity... apparently we're incapable of developing alternate energy sources, infrastructure, and applications to use them while making money and thumbing our noses at the rest of the oil producing countries.

And yes, we'll still have our ICEs sucking fuel and spewing exhaust. But more of it will be biofuel and fewer ICEs will leave dealer's lots.

You guys are like a bunch of little girls afraid of the dark. "Exxon, you're my only hope..."

grow up.

Talk about a gross distortion of what is being said. Especially considering how doom and gloom you choose to be about the benefits that are easily identified about continuing to draw on our oil resources.

The "help" from a decrease in the cost of oil is obvious: energy (and, by extension, transportation, production, etc.) becomes cheaper, so we get more for the same money. The "hurt" to the environment is really quite small, if you look at analagous situations.

Political positions don't matter to me; reality should determine political stances, not the other way around. Economically, oil, even at its higher price, is still the only game in town. Environmentally, oil extraction and consumption do little damage.

You can't get on with business unless you have the energy to do so. And the amount of business you can do is dependent upon how much that energy costs.

That's right. We do plenty of offshore drilling in the Gulf and, even when we got hit by Hurricane Katrina, there was no major spillage. We extract oil from Prudhoe Bay (right next door to ANWR), and the terrain and wildlife there have not suffered. Burning petroleum products creates mainly CO2 and water, which are pretty clean (and naturally abundant in the environment, anyway).

And you're probably not wrong. But we can't be so focussed on tomorrow that we let today go to hell.

It may not be harming YOU all that much, but consider:

Someone who commutes 30 miles round trip to work is now using an extra gallon of gas per work day. That's $4/workday x 22 workdays/month. That's $88/month. That's like a $.50/hour NET reduction in pay. Many people will miss that much money out of their pay.

Someone who runs a trucking business now has to raise prices in order to cover fuel costs. Things that get delivered--just about everything, really--get more expensive.

Someone who runs a hotel in a resort/recreational area gets fewer guests because fewer people are leaving town on the weekend.

Someone who rents an apartment in town is facing higher rents because of increased demand for apartments from people who no longer want/can afford to commute because of high gas prices.

Someone who runs a restaurant in your neighborhood is seeing reduced business because people have less disposable income, so they're eating out less often.

Someone who schedules airline flights to smaller airports has to cancel many of them because high fuel costs make the trips uneconomical.

And on and on.

Yes, high gas prices will attract alternatives, but we can get that benefit at $3/gallon; we certainly don't want to pay $5/gallon for it. And, while there have been proposals for more nuclear plants, I don't think there's that many currently under construction. The same people that resist drilling for oil are also vociferously anti-nuclear.